#5 is what I was thinking of when I responded. A simple RewriteRule, if anyone
still uses Apache.
Release vs devel and/or 3.0 vs 3.1 vs 3.2, e.g.
http://bioconductor.org/release/BiocGenerics/
Pointing analogously to
http://bioconductor.org/3.0/BiocGenerics/
seems like a good minimal
Before we start a religious war, can we make progress on the pragmatic goal of
making it possible to provide such URLs to people?
There are two concepts
- ‘the package' - a specific version, running in a specific environment,
‘frozen’, etc. (Gabe)
- ‘the package’ - as a concept and a living
Hi
After uploading our package to the tracker, it built successfully on all
systems with no errors.
But we have the following Rtools related WARNING:
WARNING: Rtools is required to build R packages, but no version of Rtools
compatible with R 3.2.0 was found. (Only the following incompatible
On 03/24/2015 02:31 AM, Wolfgang Huber wrote:
Before we start a religious war, can we make progress on the pragmatic goal of
making it possible to provide such URLs to people?
There are two concepts
- ‘the package' - a specific version, running in a specific environment,
‘frozen’, etc. (Gabe)
On Tue, Mar 24, 2015 at 7:28 AM, Wolfgang Huber whu...@embl.de wrote:
5. At the end of the day I find myself casting my lot for landing pages
with the form
http://bioconductor.org/release/BiocGenerics/
which leads to a little less typing but not the dynamic resolution that
started this
The builder for submitted packages uses the devtools package and this is a bug
in devtools:
https://github.com/hadley/devtools/issues/717
You can ignore it.
Dan
- Original Message -
From: Glyn Bradley glyn.x.brad...@gsk.com
To: bioc-devel@r-project.org
Sent: Tuesday, March 24,
I just think there are a couple of subtleties here. I certainly don't
begrudge people wanting to type less and find packages easier. But if a
naive user with a default (read: release) Bioc installation goes to
http://bioconductor.org/CoolAwesomePkg and see's that it is available in
bioconductor
